IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Quick review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-00.txt

Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com> Wed, 17 June 2009 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <sunseawq@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BA128C21E for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.897, BAYES_05=-1.11, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id atibGbQiYOAO for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC5128C12C for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KLD00JJ7MWYVA@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:41:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KLD00EFYMWXBM@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:41:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from w53375 ([10.164.12.38]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KLD001LSMWXL7@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:41:21 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:41:21 +0800
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Message-id: <046f01c9ef2f$c5d5bbf0$260ca40a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <1F18D6510CF0474A8C9500565A7E41A20545674479@NOK-EUMSG-02.mgdnok.nokia.com> <4A38AD20.4020606@nict.go.jp>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Quick review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:42:15 -0000

Hi:
May I have a quick comment for draft-dime-diameter-cmd-iana.
In the introduction of this draft, it points out a serious design issue that other SDO choose to define new applications on
existing commands rather than asking for assignment of new command codes. I totally agree with it.
 I wonder how this problem is really resolved in this draft?
Does it mean that the other SDO uses vendor specific command code namespace to assign new command codes if they want to
avoid IETF review? Why not strenghen interoperability between different SDO to get around this problem?
Also I wonder whether there is the similar bad design issue in the IETF relevant work?

Regards!
-Qin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email